Bombshell: Olympia Snowe to retire; Update: The plot thickens

posted at 5:28 pm on February 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

Just across at CNN. No details yet, but Fox reporter Trish Turner is tweeting bits of what she claims is Snowe’s statement. Quote:

“I have no doubt I would have won re-election”

“I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.”

“…what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail.”

“I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern”

Don’t get too excited to see a RINO go. Nate Silver tweets, “We had estimated GOP’s chances of holding Maine senate at 85% before. Maybe 20-30% now after Snowe retirement.” Taking back the Senate just got a lot harder. Stand by for updates.

Update: In case you’re tempted to think she quit to deny tea partiers the pleasure of tossing her out, Roll Call had the seat rated “safe Republican” and a PPP poll taken in November had her favorable rating among GOP primary voters at 51/37, up from 47/44 last March. Losing her is like losing Scott Brown, but like Brown, Snowe was a no vote on ObamaCare. If this seat turns blue, repeal just became less likely.

Update: For an early inkling of Snowe’s disgruntlement, go back and read this post from September 2010 about her lamenting “ideological purity” after the defeat of Mike Castle in Delaware. I wondered at the time whether she might bypass the primary altogether by going independent and forming some sort of new Senate indie caucus with Lieberman, Scott Brown, Collins, Murkowski, Ben Nelson, etc. That could have been the nucleus for greater centrist influence in Congress, and maybe even the germ of a third-party movement. Instead, she’ll likely end up being replaced by an orthodox Democrat. Oh well.

Update: So perfectly does her statement coincide with David Brooks’s column this morning, I have to wonder if they weren’t coordinated. Says Brooksy, first they came for the RINOs…

But where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.

The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that’s an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they’d stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. They’re not rhinos. They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively from the right…

Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. Republican leaders haven’t done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Rhinos, possums: Is there an animal that gets indignant before committing suicide to prove a point so that we have an analogy for Snowe?

Update: Via Slublog, this blogger at the Bangor Daily News says something’s suspicious here: “There is very obviously something going on here behind the scenes, since Senator Snowe was so aggressively campaigning for re-election, and in full campaign mode for the last year. Decisions like this – being so very much running (and winning) to very much not – do not happen this abruptly in politics. Ever.”

More, from a separate post: “I am told her own staff was unaware of this decision until just hours before the statement went out – just long enough to actually work on the release and send it out.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Brooks’ last paragraph is plagiarism.

Strike Twice on February 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM

What? No one left to speak for you, too?

egmont on February 28, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Good riddance. Don’t care if the seat goes blue. We need votes we can count, and you left us in time of need over and over and over.

Take Collins with you, too.

HopeHeFails on February 28, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Why is anybody surprised by this? She was always a closet Dem. She has always been conspiring with the other side. The great thing about the Tea Party has been the way it’s been forcing these people to expose themselves.

Tomolena1 on February 28, 2012 at 9:14 PM

The committee wanted the appearance of bipartisanship. In the full Senate, the Democrats voted to eliminate Snowe’s ideas.

That’s part of it, but not all of it. There had to be one Republican vote to move it out.

Missy on February 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM

No I wonder if a REPUBLICAN or at least a conservative leaning Dem can when that seat.

esnap on February 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM

“Moderate” is about where I’d like to see the Democratic Party move to. They have been off in “fifth column” for way too long now.

Count to 10 on February 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Interesting isn’t it, after I voted in our primary, I have zero problem with Gov. Romney winning the nomination. I still think he’s the worst candidate EVER.

Cindy Munford on February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Breaking news ……. Sen Olympia Snowe asked to be mitts running mate . The Romney campaign says their candidate needs someone with more Conservative cred on the ticket.

rudee on February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Brilliant. Thank you for the admission. You “moderates”, far from being the responsible “it’s the economy, stupid” voters you claim to be, are perfectly willing to sell out all fiscal responsibility over abortion…while having the temerity to accuse conservatives of being the social issues purists.

fitzfong on February 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM

What fiscal conservatism? Are you really saying Santorum is a fiscal conservative? I look at his record on fiscal, economic, labor and entitlements issues and I see a big government type.

That’s why he lost PA by 18%. The fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal suburbans who usually vote for the republican candidates abandoned him. What was the point?

The problem is not Santorum’s social conservatism. Rather his lack of fiscal conservatism.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Snowe was a no vote on ObamaCare.

It was Snowe’s “historic” YES vote that allowed obamacare out of committee. Voting NO after the horse had left the barn requires suspension of belief…

Gohawgs on February 28, 2012 at 9:33 PM

That’s part of it, but not all of it. There had to be one Republican vote to move it out.

Missy on February 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM

No. Decisions in Senate committees are by majority vote. The Democrats were a majority of the committee as they held 59 or 60 Senate seats at the time.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Why is anybody surprised by this? She was always a closet Dem. She has always been conspiring with the other side. The great thing about the Tea Party has been the way it’s been forcing these people to expose themselves.

Tomolena1 on February 28, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Could you provide your list of favorite conspiracy theories? You sound like an interesting case.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 9:36 PM

There are more refined and precise ways of stating ideas.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

sorry, guess I just one o those crass and on’rey principled conservatives.

Maybe I could be more like you…if someone puts a “R” next to them vote for them…even if they vote like BO in a dress.

(sigh, I feel I must explain my allusion to you. Olympia is a girls and votes like BO on the important issues when it counts)

airmonkey on February 28, 2012 at 9:43 PM

It was Snowe’s “historic” YES vote that allowed obamacare out of committee. Voting NO after the horse had left the barn requires suspension of belief…

Gohawgs on February 28, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Your facts are wrong. Read elsewhere on this thread.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 9:44 PM

You know what I find so totally hilarious? The exact same people who are screaming bloody murder that I will vote against Romney, the (R) and for Obama the (D) in the general, are the exact same people are are screaming that this Senator who votes for Democratic policy on a regular basis is super awesome and not expendable. I got news for you all, I have a lifetime conservative voting record up to this point in time of 100%. I am a traitor, Olympia Snowe is a damn near a saint to the same people!

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Your facts are wrong. Read elsewhere on this thread.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Actually it is true. Several of the other Yea votes were pivotal to the bipartisan cover that Snowe gave them. You can twist it any way you like, but it would have been held up much longer without her vote as the democrats jockeyed to cover their asses with bipartisan talking points.

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I do not like Term limits. I would rather see nation wide legislature votes of confidence. If the House or the Senate cannot get 50%+1 votes of confidence, every sitting member of that particular class would not be allowed to be on the upcoming ballot. So the entire house would be removed from office for at least 2 years, they can then try to win a new seat the following term. 1/3 of the Senate seats would be removed from office, and they could try to win their seat back in 6 years or in 2 or 4 years try to win a different seat. Total open primary for every seat. Have the votes on the off years November Tuesday.
astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Nah. Keep it simple, repeal the 17th amendment and return control of the senators back to their home state government. Their job is to represent the needs and wishes of their state govt. By subverting the original intent to popular vote, the 17th has knocked out a leg on which the 10th was designed to protect a state’s rights. The people already had their representatives in the House. As a result, instead of being told how to vote by the state, senators now decide how to vote based solely on their own wishes.

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM

That is the easy way, but the hard sell. It is hard to tell people that you are going to take away their power to pick senator’s. It is much easier to tell them that they can have the power to fire them all.

I agree with you. Just figure out a way to package it so people will support the change.

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Your facts are wrong. Read elsewhere on this thread.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I was wrong on the vote count, her’s wasn’t the deciding vote. Instead of a party line 13-10 loss her vote FOR help move the bill out of committe 14-9. Voting FOR a historic measure before voting against it has been an all too familiar “tactic” by some…

Gohawgs on February 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

The Helen Thomas seat is still vacant.

Buttercup on February 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM

sorry, guess I just one o those crass and on’rey principled conservatives.

airmonkey on February 28, 2012 at 9:43 PM

It’s just so difficult for us establishment Republicans to talk to the unwashed masses.

thuja on February 28, 2012 at 10:12 PM

What fiscal conservatism? Are you really saying Santorum is a fiscal conservative? I look at his record on fiscal, economic, labor and entitlements issues and I see a big government type.

That’s why he lost PA by 18%. The fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal suburbans who usually vote for the republican candidates abandoned him. What was the point?

The problem is not Santorum’s social conservatism. Rather his lack of fiscal conservatism.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 9:29 P

I am saying no such thing. Santorum is a big government, pro-life liberal. As someone with sympathies towards Paul (can’t stand Santorum’s economically tone-deaf pandering targeted at blue collar voters and his lame attempts to defend his “compassionate conservative” whipping), Santorum’s my least favorite Republican candidate left. However, if he got the nomination, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him given the alternative. I’m not certain, however, that self-described “moderate” Republicans would do the same…and, while they’ll use Santorum’s lack of fiscal conservatism as a convenient excuse for voting Obama (is Obama really going to be more fiscally responsible?), that would only be to give themselves cover because they really don’t want to seen as aligned with such a strident social conservative. And, bottom line, that’s more important to them.

That said, this thread is about Olympia Snowe.

fitzfong on February 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM

What fiscal conservatism? Are you really saying Santorum is a fiscal conservative? I look at his record on fiscal, economic, labor and entitlements issues and I see a big government type.

That’s why he lost PA by 18%. The fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal suburbans who usually vote for the republican candidates abandoned him. What was the point?

The problem is not Santorum’s social conservatism. Rather his lack of fiscal conservatism.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 9:29 P

I am saying no such thing. Santorum is a big government, pro-life liberal. As someone with sympathies towards Paul (can’t stand Santorum’s economically tone-deaf pandering targeted at blue collar voters and his lame attempts to defend his “compassionate conservative” whipping), Santorum’s my least favorite Republican candidate left. However, if he got the nomination, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him given the alternative. I’m not certain, however, that self-described “moderate” Republicans would do the same…and, while they’ll use Santorum’s lack of fiscal conservatism as a convenient excuse for voting Obama (is Obama really going to be more fiscally responsible?), that would only be to give themselves cover because they really don’t want to seen as aligned with such a strident social conservative. And, bottom line, that’s more important to them.

That said, this thread is about Olympia Snowe.

fitzfong on February 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Thin of it this way: fiscal issues are more important to them. That’s why they voted for, say, Pat Toomey – who’s very socially conservative too.

However, a guy like Santorum doesn’t offer enough separation in those issues from the democrat candidate. As they disagree with his strident social conservatism – it’s more about the tone, they don’t have much of a problem to vote for very strong social conservatives who aren’t the aggressors in culture wars – they end up voting on the other side.

Seems logic to me. They don’t claim to be culture warriors or republican loyalists. Similar phenomenon to Paul supporters who won’t vote for another Republican because they support Paul mostly for his foreign policy and money creation platform.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Interesting how Brooks & Snow & Collins & Specter & Castle & all those types are always lecturing the rest of us about the need for flexibility, etc. ….

And yet they can never be counted on to support a nominee more conservative then themselves.

BD57 on February 28, 2012 at 10:27 PM

No I wonder if a REPUBLICAN or at least a conservative leaning Dem can when that seat.

esnap on February 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM

A conservative Democrat is still a loss.

Why?

Because they will vote for Reid for leader, and if he gets back in we will see more of the same that we have since Republican took Congress- Everything they do gets sent to the Senate and gets stepped on and then the base gets pissed that they put so much effort into electing a body that then can’t get anything done that they sent them there to do.

Would I love for someone I believed to be a solid conservative to be in all the Republican seats? Yes.

Am I willing to put up with a vote I can’t always count on to get Reid out of leadership so the conservatives in Congress have a chance to get their message out as opposed to stuffed like it is now while the base gets pissed more isn’t being done and all the blame passes the Senate thanks to the media? Yes I am.

I’ll take an ugly win which can be built off and expanded on when people see what conservatives can actually bring to the table once they are not blocked over an ideological pure loss that cripples the movement every time.

If the seat flips and Reid holds on to his Senate leadership by one vote it will be a great loss and we will see another two years of a Senate not turning in a budget and a nation constantly being fear mongered about how the budget shutdown is looming. In a fair world that might not cause the panic that it does but the world is hardly fair and the MSM can still wield a powerful stick which is shown every time a “Crisis” comes up and Republicans cave, fearful it is 1998 all over again and they will be seen as the party at fault of hurting those who rely on government.

Do I want Snowe gone and am I glad she is on one level? Oh yes.

But I want Reid out of leadership far, far, far more or any seat gain in Congress will be meaningless as we have seen how he operates and how far he is willing to go to ignore his Constitutional duties to further his own political goals..

Betenoire on February 28, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Decisions like this – being so very much running (and winning) to very much not – do not happen this abruptly in politics. Ever.”

Sex tape?

mrsmwp on February 28, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Breaking news ……. Sen Olympia Snowe asked to be mitts running mate . The Romney campaign says their candidate needs someone with more Conservative cred on the ticket.

rudee on February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Funny!

Sex tape?

mrsmwp on February 28, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!! (LOL)

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Gee, thanks, RINOs! So much for taking back the Senate in 2012.

Remember this any time one of our great moderates hectors conservatives for “taking their ball and going home.”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 28, 2012 at 10:38 PM

That is the easy way, but the hard sell. It is hard to tell people that you are going to take away their power to pick senator’s. It is much easier to tell them that they can have the power to fire them all.

I agree with you. Just figure out a way to package it so people will support the change.

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM

That’s the dilemma, giving the people more power to vote their desires. Either way would require a constitutional amendment. If we go that far, better an amendment to repeal the former than just to add one. To me, restoring the state’s right to be fully represented trumps giving people more power. But this isn’t to discredit you idea to replace an entire class with new blood for a cycle. Ill have to think some more on the pros and cons.

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Thin of it this way: fiscal issues are more important to them. That’s why they voted for, say, Pat Toomey – who’s very socially conservative too.

However, a guy like Santorum doesn’t offer enough separation in those issues from the democrat candidate. As they disagree with his strident social conservatism – it’s more about the tone, they don’t have much of a problem to vote for very strong social conservatives who aren’t the aggressors in culture wars – they end up voting on the other side.

Seems logic to me. They don’t claim to be culture warriors or republican loyalists. Similar phenomenon to Paul supporters who won’t vote for another Republican because they support Paul mostly for his foreign policy and money creation platform.

joana on February 28, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Fair enough. And people like Castle and Snowe haven’t offered enough separation from Democrats on issues of the economy, environmental regulation, tax policy and job creation to make conservatives the least bit concerned as to whether they win or not. When push comes to shove, it’s more important for them to be perceived as “civil” aisle crossers and “reasonable” Republicans than to be fiscally responsible. And frankly, it’s tiresome to be continually lectured on tone from a Senator who appears to pride herself on giving Republican cover to Democrat power grabs while demanding our appreciation of and deference to her for being the “best we can expect” from a Northeastern Republican.

fitzfong on February 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM

To those who support the idea of making Senators electable by the states (not the people), I have a question. While the reform you suggest would have made Senators more responsible in the distant past, does it matter anymore? When the states were governed responsibly, they would (under your reform) require Senators to be responsible. These days, I wonder if this reform would make it easier for the Liberal states on both coasts to loot the middle of the country. Any thoughts?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Nah. Keep it simple, repeal the 17th amendment and return control of the senators back to their home state government. Their job is to represent the needs and wishes of their state govt. By subverting the original intent to popular vote, the 17th has knocked out a leg on which the 10th was designed to protect a state’s rights. The people already had their representatives in the House. As a result, instead of being told how to vote by the state, senators now decide how to vote based solely on their own wishes.

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I agree, but the proggies have somewhat successfully associated the 10th Amendment with slavery. That’s stupid and wrong but they get away with worse.

slickwillie2001 on February 28, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Thank God. I’m going back to church…to pray that women like her are never allowed to sit in Congress gain…women who have never served in the military de balling our troops.

One of the worst things to ever happen to America….ball less women in Congress.

Twana on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Snowe probably figured the principled thing to do is to sell out as a lobbyist rather than sell out as a senator.

viking01 on February 28, 2012 at 10:59 PM

OLYMPIA SNOWE:

Stimulus: Whats not to like about Stimulus!
Sotomayor: You Betcha!
Obamacare: Sure, Why wouldn’t I push this through committee?

Afterseven on February 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM

To those who support the idea of making Senators electable by the states (not the people), I have a question. While the reform you suggest would have made Senators more responsible in the distant past, does it matter anymore? When the states were governed responsibly, they would (under your reform) require Senators to be responsible. These days, I wonder if this reform would make it easier for the Liberal states on both coasts to loot the middle of the country. Any thoughts?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Good question. The first and best outcome is the end of senators for life except for hard core states like MA, but then again, depending on the state’s constitution whether the Senator is appointed by governor or by legislature. I believe MA was appointed by governor so at the time the state was under gop governor, Teddy could have been replaced by another. Another good example would be ahnuld, he could have replaced boxer with his competitor–the name escapes me now. But that’s al speculation. The one thing we can be sure of is that if the 17th never happened, McVain would be out, as with all the other long timers simply due to alternating state regimes under both dnc and gop.

Also back then, when a Senator ignored his state’s wishes, he could be recalled and replaced by the state.

Bottomline, the founders intended change to happen slowly. With them, gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Without the 17th, FDR might not have been able to do the new deal nor might LBJ have been able to paycheck the welfare society.

Sounds like a good project to look at the balance of power by state and their rules from the perspective of what if the 17th had never been enacted. Hmmm

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Good riddance. She is an extremist “moderate” RINO following her own big-government establishment agenda and interests, not the best interests of the nation. With people like her in government who needs enemies. A poster child to justify the argument for constitutional term limits as far as I am concerned.

AttaBoyLuther on February 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM

To those who support the idea of making Senators electable by the states (not the people), I have a question. While the reform you suggest would have made Senators more responsible in the distant past, does it matter anymore? When the states were governed responsibly, they would (under your reform) require Senators to be responsible. These days, I wonder if this reform would make it easier for the Liberal states on both coasts to loot the middle of the country. Any thoughts?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Bottomline, the founders intended change to happen slowly. With them, gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Without the 17th, FDR might not have been able to do the new deal nor might LBJ have been able to paycheck the welfare society.

Sounds like a good project to look at the balance of power by state and their rules from the perspective of what if the 17th had never been enacted. Hmmm

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Given where we are now, I’m not sure repealing the 17th would make us a more financially responsible country. It seems to me that our society is fundamentally more broken. Thoughts anyone?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM

It seems to me that our society is fundamentally more broken. Thoughts anyone?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I feel that way. It just seems that there is no way to remind American’s that they would be better off with conservative, old school, constitutional government. They are too prone to voting for the moment and what ever the future costs, well, they can be pushed off til those benefiting today are dead.

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Given where we are now, I’m not sure repealing the 17th would make us a more financially responsible country. It seems to me that our society is fundamentally more broken. Thoughts anyone?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM

If anything, it would likely entrench interests. You are not accountable to the electorate when you are selected by a governor or state assembly. I prefer direct elections for the Senate. I don’t see direct elections as forwarding or retarding fiscal prudence. Imagine the horse trading to get votes. I’d rather they pandered to the electorate, the people, rather than a politician or a state group of politicians.

Snowe will be missed. Every senator counts.

lexhamfox on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Go, Olympia. And take Susan Collins with you.

BacaDog on February 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM

The suddenness of this makes you wonder whether it is related to some serious health problem.

galtani on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Don’t let the doorknob hit you on the way out.

xblade on February 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I notice there was nothing about a huge federal government. So their form of a Republican Party is the only thing acceptable? They cannot stand on their own convictions to ‘oppose’ these partisan idealogues? They have none, so they can’t.

They want Republicans to be mush. David Brooks hasn’t said something intellectual in years. I too can complain constantly while interspersing articles with random big words. Any other egocentric 3-termer can suck my sack. Luckily we have States standing up, maybe it will trickle down to local and trickle up to national.

John Kettlewell on February 29, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Come on peeps, the Dems are defending a HUGE number of seats. I think we are going to comfortably win at least 7, perhaps more. Snowe’s retirement just saves us a lot of money in the primary. Next Up, Collins.

We can try to help over here in MI and bounce Stabenow out, we have some good candidates on the GOP side.

karenhasfreedom on February 29, 2012 at 2:12 AM

If these RINOS would rather cede the country to a european socialist system than the country that the constitution and bill of rights that Reagan proclaimed so well just 30 years ago, then i say Let them quit on the country and spend their remaining days telling their children and grandchildren that the country they were born and raised in just wasn’t right.

It is 30 years of people just like Snowe in charge that has the US where it is today.

cougar on February 29, 2012 at 2:38 AM

I still think he’s the worst candidate EVER.

Cindy Munford on February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Sorry, I don’t trust your judgement then. John McCain was far worse. Romney, Santorum, even philandering Gingrich are by far better than McCain was as a candidate.

scotash on February 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM

It seems quite a few of men around here lament Snowe leaving them or the battlefield of ideas. But that should give everyone pause. Madame has been on board SS The Brokest Nation IN History(TM) for 15 years in the House and then 17 years in the Senate, and now that the Cruise Director hasn’t passed a budget in over 1,000 days and the cliff of bankruptcy is on the horizon, Madame is not prepared to compromise her liberal legacy (never lost an election in 35 years) over some Tea Party group on the Lido Deck, and now wants to stop the world and get off.

Mitt “I was a severely conservative Republican governor” Romney has been harping on social issues, but Madame is pro-choice, repealed DADT, and never has an unfilled dance card at GLBT weddings. Do you realize that Madame has been touted in liberal press since 2006 as a severely possible presidential contender? The coming course correction not to enshrine health care as a “right” as promised by Mitt Romney in repeal of Obamacare might be too much to even tempt Madame with the VP Senate gavel. Oh no.

Madame is 65 years young (she entered into politics at the age of 26 to fill her deceased husband’s State House seat), and while the entrenched political class most often dies in office, and she has never been targeted by the DNC for an election scorched earth campaign, I would be remiss in not pointing out this isn’t about our side winning: It’s about not having our government pay for the Chevy Volt.

Her time in office is the legacy of managed decline. She now waves the white flag rather than fight for American Exceptionalism. Olympia Snowe only sees the impossible as fighting to stop the expansion of government. And you wail as women for the loss of a head to wear a party crown. Shame.

So madame will move on to a government post or ambassadorship in calming statist Europe now centralized by the Franco-German intergovernmental harmonization. But let us not forget that for 35 years Olympia represented the good people of the state of Maine, and when her term is up and she stands still, bubbling up under her feet is a balkinized state in her image and of her making. That “centrist ideology” the voters kept sending to Washington, D.C. (and let’s be honest, the point of her brand of RINO is to be controversial) has now built up around them a welfare system so good at holding down aspirations that nearly 30% of Mainers are on some form of welfare:

“Maine is so far outside the mainstream in the extraordinarily high number of people trapped in its welfare system that not a single other state ranks in the top twelve for enrollment in all three major welfare programs. The state closest to matching Maine’s level of welfare system dependence is New York, which ranks 13th in Food Stamps, 10th in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and 4th in Medicaid. Maine ranks second in the nation in all three.”

Such a long, slow increase of temperature finds the natives feeling like the lobster as they now contend with no-go zones of Somali’s leading to Khat as a new drug for law enforcement to seize and society to mitigate, services overload, anti-social young men who return to jihad, gangs, and guns moving across the Canadian border, another other delights of multiculturalism. Not to change the subject, but who exactly are all these zombie shows conditioning to not just seek safety but destroy all those in the other tribe? #Occupy

So, either Mitt Romney has run off Olympia Snowe or she will be his running mate. #NextInLineWinning Pardon me if I don’t bow to kiss Madam’s hem or call the party my daddy.

FeFe on February 29, 2012 at 3:07 AM

“I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive

Update: For an early inkling of Snowe’s disgruntlement, go back and read this post from September 2010 about her lamenting “ideological purity” after the defeat of Mike Castle in Delaware.

Oh, boo-hoo. Can’t wait to forget about you. You’ll be nothing but an unpleasant memory if anyone mentions to two witches from Maine.

Losing her is like losing Scott Brown, but like Brown, Snowe was a no vote on ObamaCare. If this seat turns blue, repeal just became less likely.

Allah, the important vote she made was yes, to turn the beast loose from the committee she served on. Sounds like she isn’t interested in dealing the heat that goes along with her treachery.

Feedie on February 29, 2012 at 3:11 AM

OMG! We are going to lose RINO Snowe just as we lost RINO Senator Arlen Specter??? We are SO FRACKIN SCREWEDLED!!! /s

Polls continue to show that Americans have little faith in the GOP or the DNC. Perhaps if the Republicans stopped acting like liberals that would change.

I wonder what it is that she did wrong and is causing her to ‘retire’. HMMM!

DannoJyd on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 AM

I think what the establishment and PtB don’t understand is that as long as there is such strong progressive influence in Congress the ‘wingers’ will fight tooth and nail not to compromise with them. For far too long legislation has ratcheted only one way.

It’s time for the progressives to compromise with US.

MaggiePoo on February 29, 2012 at 5:31 AM

Sorry, I don’t trust your judgement then. John McCain was far worse. Romney, Santorum, even philandering Gingrich are by far better than McCain was as a candidate.

scotash on February 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM

McCain won the R primaries. This cycle is yet to be determined. McCain sucked as the nominee. This cycle better not be a repeat…

Gohawgs on February 29, 2012 at 5:47 AM

Snowe will be missed. Every senator counts.

lexhamfox on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM

True. Not looking forward to the possibility of a Reid-Willard Wet Temple T-shirt party. Unlikely since Willard, if nominated, will lose by 10+ so Harry will have to party alone.

Annar on February 29, 2012 at 6:20 AM

I wonder what it is that she did wrong and is causing her to ‘retire’. HMMM!

DannoJyd on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 AM

Round & around on this.

Congress critters don’t suddenly wake up one morning and decide to retire.

roy_batty on February 29, 2012 at 7:20 AM

“I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern” – Sen. Snowe

That “political center” is fed up with ChicagØbama and his crew of thugs and liars too.
There are other Senate seats up for grabs too. Snowe bowing out isn’t really a big deal. She’s been a pain in the patoot for conservatives anyhow.
Is there a conspiracy afoot, or is she just tired of the Dems constant attacks under Slimy Harry Reid’s non-leadership?
I dunno. Harry Reid has hijacked OUR government. I can’t understand why any Republican would put up with Slimy Harry – a radical Leftist. Maybe all those afraid of a fight should just go home.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 29, 2012 at 7:32 AM

It seems to me that our society is fundamentally more broken. Thoughts anyone?
Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I feel that way. It just seems that there is no way to remind American’s that they would be better off with conservative, old school, constitutional government. They are too prone to voting for the moment and what ever the future costs, well, they can be pushed off til those benefiting today are dead.

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM

That explains the sheeple who vote democrat on reflex.

If anything, it is entrenched interests.
lexhamfox on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM

This explains most of the politians who have lost their way once inside the beltway.

The most damaging group is the educated (either by degree(s) or other-like extensive world travel). These folks are simply thinking ‘outside of themselves’ – the noble big picture that is easy peasy to spread – like herpes.
Ex: to them, oil is finite, short-sided and a selfish concept. Whereas, wind and solar are infinite blah blah blah. In the big-picture sense a little pain along the way is the ‘right thing to do’.
Forget the dumb masses for now- it’s the do-gooder smartypants that are killing us.

egmont on February 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM

“I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.”

Really? As a citizen I’m growing weary of exactly that shit from the likes of you, Ms. Snow, and every instance of Nanny State government which intrudes upon my life.

bloviator on February 29, 2012 at 8:18 AM

I was wrong on the vote count, her’s wasn’t the deciding vote. Instead of a party line 13-10 loss her vote FOR help move the bill out of committe 14-9. Voting FOR a historic measure before voting against it has been an all too familiar “tactic” by some…

Gohawgs on February 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

There was some fear of Dem defection before she announced her support, as well.

Her vote was reported as a huge victory for Dems in moving the bill forward. Hosannas in the HuffPo and the whole bit.

Missy on February 29, 2012 at 8:26 AM

AH_C on February 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM

That is the easy way, but the hard sell. It is hard to tell people that you are going to take away their power to pick senator’s. It is much easier to tell them that they can have the power to fire them all.

I agree with you. Just figure out a way to package it so people will support the change.

astonerii on February 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM

that would be totally awesome if we can pull it off ….

conservative tarheel on February 29, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Sorry, I don’t trust your judgement then. John McCain was far worse. Romney, Santorum, even philandering Gingrich are by far better than McCain was as a candidate.

scotash on February 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM

McCain won the R primaries. This cycle is yet to be determined. McCain sucked as the nominee. This cycle better not be a repeat…

Gohawgs on February 29, 2012 at 5:47 AM

I hope I am wrong …. but he might lose worse then McLame did ….

did you hear BHO at the rally in MI … something about one of these Republicans wanted Detroit to go bankrupt … but the bailout saved you ….

conservative tarheel on February 29, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Maine flipped red in nov 2010 people. Maybe she saw the writing…

dogsoldier on February 29, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Here’s my theory:
Obama is firing Biden and asked Snowe to be his new running mate — you know, to show he’s non-partisan. Then they can make utopia together./

Christian Conservative on February 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Good riddance…

voiceofreason on February 29, 2012 at 9:12 AM

hmmm it could happen ….. I don’t know … I thought Hillary would get the nod ….

conservative tarheel on February 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

She was only a NO-vote when Obamacare had already been determined it would pass. She would have gladly voted “Yes” if they would have needed it.

JeffinOrlando on February 29, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Just another worthless RINO finally understanding that the establishment is the third party and unelectable. Of course the mainstream media will state otherwise, but they have been incapable of the truth for years. By the way, what happened to all of the fainting women in the audience while obama was giving his speeches.

volsense on February 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM

…but like Brown, Snowe was a no vote on ObamaCare. If this seat turns blue, repeal just became less likely.

Poor logic. Just because she voted against the bill on the floor when it had the votes to pass anyway, does not mean she would vote to repeal it. Nothing in her history suggests she would take such a stance.

SD on February 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Has she endorsed anyone yet?

Kissmygrits on February 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

She screwed us every time it counted. Rot in Hell, RINO.

SurferDoc on February 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Given where we are now, I’m not sure repealing the 17th would make us a more financially responsible country. It seems to me that our society is fundamentally more broken. Thoughts anyone?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM

If anything, it would likely entrench interests. You are not accountable to the electorate when you are selected by a governor or state assembly. I prefer direct elections for the Senate. I don’t see direct elections as forwarding or retarding fiscal prudence. Imagine the horse trading to get votes. I’d rather they pandered to the electorate, the people, rather than a politician or a state group of politicians.
lexhamfox on February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM

I think the exact opposite.

I believe there’s a correlation between the injections of democracy and transparency in the political machinery – the progressive eras in the early XX century and in the 60s – and explosions in spending.

Direct elections are a mean of forwarding fiscal recklessness. Politicians want to keep their jobs first and foremost and taking unpopular measures is just too difficult for them. Too much to ask!
Not to mention the donors.

Why do you think they need “Super Congress” to even try to cut a little bit of spending? Or stuff like the military base-closing commissions? Because they need political palatable methods that allows them to escape the ire of the voters. Or just see California. How has more direct democracy worked for them? Oh, the majority of the voters always vote in favor of more spending and less taxes! Surprising! It’s necessary to keep the passions of populace under control.

We need less democracy in our system. Ideally, the Senate should be like the SCOTUS. I think one of the reasons the Supremes tend to be more respected is because they don’t need to pander to anyone. So they can decide with their conscience, it’s their job for life.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

My guess is that she either decided that she has had her fill of the current divisive political environment…or she has an undisclosed family or health issue that she considers to be more important than her political career right now.

NuclearPhysicist on February 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish.

She was only moderately Republican anyway, however if the Mainiac’s don’t put another R in that seat we could be in danger of not getting the Senate. I think we will anyway when the wave starts it’s hard to stop – Reagan.

She was responsible for getting Obamacare out of committee.

Repeal of the 17th has always been a dream of mine, boy would I love to see that dream come true. Other dreams are; 1 term for bammy, repeal of Roe v. Wade, and to stop the insanity of the commerce clause. I can dream can’t I?

D-fusit on February 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Great. Another opportunity for Levin, Limbaugh, and the Tea Party halfwits to get a loser nominated.

Mark1971 on February 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

And you’re the kind of d-bag that whistles a lovely tune to the chef while he turns up the burner under your pot. I’d rather a staunch conservative lose, than another Snowe win.

Don’t piss on my trousers and try to convince me it’s raining.

StompUDead on February 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM

“….Senator Snowe was so aggressively campaigning for re-election, and in full campaign mode for the last year. Decisions like this – being so very much running (and winning) to very much not – do not happen this abruptly in politics. Ever.”

Agreed – Something doesn’t smell right.

This isn’t a bad poll, and it’s certainly not righteous indignation (not from this souless RINO).

Nope. Somethings up.

Tim_CA on February 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM

FeFe on February 29, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Elegant; an enjoyable read …

ShainS on February 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM

It seems to me that our society is fundamentally more broken. Thoughts anyone?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Agreed. I’d say irreparably broken … it’d just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

ShainS on February 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

All this whine, whine, whining about partisanship. You want less partisanship? Then get the government out of our business. When the government controls every aspect of our lives, then everything becomes political. What’s ripping us apart is not that we have a diversity of opinions. On the contrary, it is a sign of a healthy and vibrant society to have a diversity of opinions and perspectives. What’s ripping us apart is that larger and larger chunks of our lives are being determined not by individual choice but by political fiat, guided not by individual responsibility but by government mandate.

texasentrepreneur on February 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM

To the Republican Committee: Give us a good, conservative candidate and I’ll contribute from Ohio. I’m sure others will also.

NotEasilyFooled on February 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I do blame the “Sharon Angle/Christine O’Donnell” wing of the Party for chasing her out, there was a significant effort underway to primary her.

I’m all for stiff primary challenges in Red States (like Indiana for Senator Lugar) but on Blue states in the Northeast? Just keep your mouth shut and be glad we have a Republican that supports us about 80% of the time.

Snowe was an ally, she voted against ObamaCare. When she did go against conservatives, she usually did it in a classy and understated way (unlike McCain that relished the opportunity to blast his Party)

Some TeaTard will likely get nominated there. This state will be a shoo-in for a left-wing Democrat to be a Senator for life, just like Delaware.

BradTank on February 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Yesterday I mentioned several names that could still make this seat somewhat competitive, namely Kevin Raye. It’d still be likely D, but we’d have a chance.

However, there’s someone who can win this seat for the Republicans. Bill Cohen, the former Congressman, Senator and Secretary of Defense. He’s a RINO, but not as much as Snowe and Collins and we won’t elect a more conservative republican in Maine anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cohen

Here’s his e-mail:

wcohen at cohengroup dot net

If you want to keep this seat Republican and give us a chance of winning back the Senate – which will be very important, especially if Obama is re-elected – write the man asking him to consider a run and pledging your support.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Gohawgs is right, it was Snowe who is responsible for Obamacide coming out of committee. Snowe was half of the commie twins from Maine, nothing more then a stinking leftist with an R behind her name.

jqc1970 on February 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

It seems Sen. Snowe has a never ending supply of ways to stick it to Republicans.

natasha333 on February 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

David Brooks could be right:

“They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively…” or even NOT so aggressively from anyone in the news media or democrat party.

Boehner blusters a lot, but then he always tries to kick Lucy’s football…and goes along with dems; not much of a fighter.

conservative4freedom on February 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Michaud is running.

That means Kevin Raye can run for ME-02 and make it a toss-up.

Maybe we lose a senator from Maine but gain a congressman.

Now, if we could get Bill Cohen to run, that would be amazing.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Brooks’ last paragraph is plagiarism.

Strike Twice on February 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM

What? No one left to speak for you, too?

egmont on February 28, 2012 at 9:07 PM

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984

Strike Twice on February 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

“Are there no men in Maine?” You know, kinda like there’s no men in DC!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 29, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Michaud is running.

That means Kevin Raye can run for ME-02 and make it a toss-up.

Maybe we lose a senator from Maine but gain a congressman.

Now, if we could get Bill Cohen to run, that would be amazing.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:45

Michaud calls himself a bluedog dem. He would be better than Pingree or Baldacci. Maybe we get lucky and end up with two repubs anyway?

aceinstall on February 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Michaud is running.

That means Kevin Raye can run for ME-02 and make it a toss-up.

Maybe we lose a senator from Maine but gain a congressman.

Now, if we could get Bill Cohen to run, that would be amazing.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 12:45

Michaud calls himself a bluedog dem. He would be better than Pingree or Baldacci. Maybe we get lucky and end up with two repubs anyway?

aceinstall on February 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Michaud may call himself a Blue Dog Democrat, but he’s way to the left of, say, Snowe.

He’s more of a Blue Dog in name only, don’t confuse him with Dan Boren or even Dan Lipinsky. He’s nominally pro-life and that’s about it. Nominally – he always gets 100% or close for NARAL and 10% of close from the National Right to Life. He voted for Obamacare and against the amendment to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion. He’s basically a liberal democrat who will vote in favor of banning partial-birth abortion and little more.

joana on February 29, 2012 at 4:32 PM

“There is very obviously something going on here behind the scenes, since Senator Snowe was so aggressively campaigning for re-election, and in full campaign mode for the last year. Decisions like this – being so very much running (and winning) to very much not – do not happen this abruptly in politics. Ever.”

Olympia got caught putting the perfect crease in Brooks trousers.

chickasaw42 on February 29, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Too bad, so sad. One less RINO to disappoint the Republican base. Better a honest liberal Democrat than a squishy moderate Republican.

paulus1 on February 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Begone! And take your boot polish with you!

minnesoter on February 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

One of the worst things to ever happen to America….ball less women in Congress.

No, one of the worst things to happen in America are ball-less representatives and Senators. Most (but not all) of them Democrats. The RINOs like Snowe have emasculated America.

If we get a Democrat in her place, please tell me what the difference is? The only thing she did was to give cover to the Dem0ocrats whenever they wanted to pass some nasty piece of legislation.

Good riddance.

hachiban on March 1, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5